Western Political And Religious Leaders Are Heading For Surrender To Islam

MORE BEHEADINGS, MORE DENIAL

NOVEMBER 20, 2014 · 12:00 AM

↓ Jump to Comments

Author(s):  Robert Spencer
Source:  Jihad Watch.     Article date: November 18th, 2014

1

In FrontPage today I discuss the predictable jihad and the predictable reaction to it:

All you have to do is change the name of the victim, and this could be a story from August, or September, or October: the Islamic State has beheaded yet another hostage, this time Peter Kassig, aka Abdul-Rahman Kassig, and Barack Obama has declared yet again that the beheading has nothing to do with Islam. Obama might as well have a form ready for the next jihad beheading or mass murder attack: all he will have to do is fill in the blank and then take to the airwaves to say that the latest bloodshed has nothing to do with Islam. If the victims are British, he can lend his form to David Cameron.

But all this repeating of the political elites’ “Islam is peace” meme will never make it so. And the constant repetition of this falsehood is doing nothing less thanendangering Americans. It keeps people ignorant who might otherwise get a clear idea of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. It fosters complacency. It makes all too many Americans assume that this kind of behavior is restricted to the “extremists” of the Islamic State, and could never happen here.

It could happen here. It could happen anywhere that people read the phrase “when you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” (Qur’an 47:4) as if it were a command of the Creator of the Universe. But to point out that simple and obvious fact nowadays only brings down upon one’s head charges of “hatred” and of “demonizing all Muslims,” when in a sane society it would bring honest explanations from Muslims of good will of what they were doing to ensure that no Muslim ever acted on that verse’s literal meaning.

In reality, they’re doing nothing. No Muslim organization, mosque or school in the United States has any program to teach young Muslims and converts to Islam why they should avoid and reject on Islamic grounds the vision of Islam – and of unbelievers – that the Islamic State and other jihad groups offer them. This is extremely strange, given the fact that all the Muslim organizations, mosques and schools in the United States ostensibly reject this understanding of Islam. And even stranger is that no American authorities seem to have noticed the absence of such initiatives, much less dared to call out Muslim groups about this.

On the contrary, instead of calling on Muslim groups to take some action to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future, Obama’s latest denial was even more strenuous in its dissociation of the beheading from Islam: “ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own.”

“Least of all”! As if it were possible that the Islamic State’s actions represented Buddhism, or Methodism, or Christian Science, or the Hardshell Baptists, or the Mandaeans, to greater or lesser degrees, but the most far-fetched association one could make, out of all the myriad faiths people hold throughout the world, would be to associate the Islamic State’s actions with…Islam. The Islamic State’s actions represent no faith, least of all Islam – as if it were more likely that the Islamic State were made up of Presbyterians or Lubavitcher Hasidim or Jains or Smartas than that it were made up of Muslims.

Why do not just some, but all of the political leaders in Western countries cling to this outlandish fiction? Because reality indicts them. Not only do they insist that Islam is a religion of peace despite an ever-growing mountain of evidence to the contrary; they have made that falsehood a cornerstone of numerous policies. They have encouraged mass immigration and refugee resettlement from Muslim countries, without even making an attempt to determine whether or not any of the people they were importing had any connections to or sympathies with jihad groups. Their governments have for years partnered with and collaborated with groups with proven ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. They have favored and aided the Brotherhood and groups like it to attain power in the Middle East and North Africa, deeming them “moderate” because they claimed to eschew violence, and blithely ignoring that their goals were the same as those of groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

If Barack Obama or David Cameron admitted that Islam was not a religion of peace, all these disastrous policies and others would be called into question. Cameron’s government might, quite deservedly, fall, and Obama’s would be crippled.

However, the primary reason why Obama and his cohorts continue to stand athwart the pile of beheaded bodies shouting that Islam is a religion of peace is because if they didn’t, the mainstream media – following its own policies as delineated by the Society of Professional Journalists – would immediately denounce them as “racists,” “bigots,” and “Islamophobes,” and their career not just as politicians but as respectable people would be over. It’s not that bad, you say? Just look at how the sharks are circling Bill Maher and tell me that.

Nonetheless, the Big Lie, however ascendant it may be today, is foredoomed. The fact that it is repeated, and must be repeated, so often is evidence of that. No one has to run around insisting that Christianity is a religion of peace, because Christian leaders are reacting to the escalating Muslim persecution of their brethren by opening up their churches to Muslim prayer and muting their criticism of that persecution out of deference to their Muslim “dialogue” partners. If anything says “religion of peace,” it’s Christians forcibly ejecting a Christian woman from a Christian cathedral for proclaiming Christ, so that Muslims could deny him there.

“Religion of abject surrender” might be more apt, but in any case, no one thinks contemporary Christianity is a religion of war. All too many Muslims worldwide, however, energetically go about illustrating every day that Islam is not a religion of peace, and so they keep Obama’s printer busy turning out denial forms, ready for him to fill in the blanks with the name of the next victim: “The murder of _________ has nothing whatsoever to do with the great religion of Islam…”

But this is a counsel of despair. The truth will get out; indeed, it is already abundantly out. We can only hope that not too many more will have to feel the blade at their necks before Obama and the rest can no longer avoid taking realistic and effective action.

Can Islam Reform Itself Or Will It Remain In The 7th Century?

Beautifying Islam

by Ahmed Vanya
November 20, 2014 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4894/beautifying-islam

105

Comment

Many people are understandably asking: What is the true nature of Islam? Is it that although there are many peaceful Muslims, Islam itself is not peaceful?
Classical Islamic law, developed over the history of Islam, is definitely not peaceful or benign, and therefore not suitable for this age; neither are its violent and grotesque progeny, such as Islamism and jihadism.
If Islam is a religion that stands for justice and peaceful coexistence, then this policy of jihad cannot be justified as sanctioned by a just and merciful creator.
Religious traditions have changed and evolved over time, therefore it is the duty of us Muslims, using reason and common sense, to reinterpret the scriptures to bring about an Islam that affirms and promotes universally accepted human rights and values. It is our duty to cleanse the traditional, literalist, classical Islam and purify it to make it an Islam that is worthy to be called a beautiful religion.

Looking at a year of beheadings by ISIS, child grooming abuses in the UK, judicial misconduct by the hanging judges of Iran, slaughtering and enslaving of Christians in Egypt and Africa, and various murders justified in the name of Islam throughout the world, many people are understandably asking: What is the true nature of Islam? Is it that although there are many peaceful Muslims, Islam itself is not peaceful?
If, for us Muslims, Islam is a religion of peace, justice, and mercy, how come the militants, who claim to be staunch Muslims -- who are ready to die for Islam and who claim to have established a state in the name of Islam in Iraq and Syria by sacrificing blood and lives -- are beheading journalists and aid workers, and enslaving religious minorities, all by citing Islamic Sharia Law?
The Taliban (literally "students") in Afghanistan have persecuted religious minorities and inflicted human right abuses against women -- and men who disagreed with them or who have fallen afoul of their laws. Boko Haram has also carried out human rights abuses in the name of Islam and Islamic law. In Malaysia, where "moderate" Islam is practiced, Christians cannot call God "Allah." In Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, and supposedly an ally of the U.S., the policies and practices carried out by the state, and the Wahhabi religious scholars in the name of Islam, are woefully anti-humanitarian. Many Muslims from around the world perform the religiously required pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina; a number of them are on the dole of the petrodollars provided by the Saudis, but do not show much concern for the human rights abuses carried out in the name of Islam by the Saudi establishment.
Many devout Muslims, like monks in monasteries, are busily trapped in performing rites and rituals, and ceding ever more ground to extremists, without adequately reflecting on the history of Islam, the nature of God and the nature of revelation from God.
We Muslims commonly believe that God sent prophets and messengers to every corner of the world since the beginning of creation to guide humanity, but that most, if not all, of the messages got corrupted and adulterated, one way or another, except the message of Islam. But it seems natural that most people, Muslims or not, also see their own religion as the only true religion. But there are religious traditions, both in Islam, such as many Sufi sects, and in other religions, that affirm the transcendental unity at the core of almost all religious traditions, and that are inclusive and universalistic in nature.
Also, Muslims learn from the Qur'an that hubris, or arrogance, is the greatest sin committed by the Satan, and that it was arrogance led him to disobey God. God asked him to bow to Adam, the first human, but Satan refused out of arrogance.
The current question seems to be: Did Muslims go astray very early on, when they conquered many lands and developed a massive doctrine and theology of intolerance (it took about 300 years to solidify Sharia after the passing of the Prophet Muhammad), due to pride and quest for power -- the very arrogance that is prohibited? Although many conversions to Islam did not occur by the sword, the first four caliphs (the so-called "Rightly Guided") and their successors did in fact send out armies to conquer the world. If Islam is a religion that stands for justice and peaceful coexistence, then this policy of jihad -- and the idea that peace and justice can be achieved only under Islamic sovereignty -- with Muslim rulers subjugating non-Muslims, cannot be justified as sanctioned by a just and merciful Creator.
The Islamic tradition is not monolithic; there are countless variants. Many of the Islamic Sufi traditions, for instance, that are often relentlessly condemned by the extremists, who likely see them as a threat to their own power -- are notable for their pluralistic and humanistic nature, even though, historically, some orders may have been more martial than spiritual.
There have been many individual Muslims throughout history who are truly freedom-loving and who respect the rights of all human beings. Also, historically, a number of Muslim kings, sultans and emperors in Andalusia, Spain -- and in the Ottoman Empire in Turkey, as well as in Mughal India -- who treated their non-Muslim subjects kindly, albeit not with full equality. The Ottoman Sultans established a system of "millet" whereby people of other religious communities were allowed to live in the Empire in peace, although as second-class "protected" citizens, had to pay a head tax called jizya, but were otherwise freely allowed to follow their own personal laws and religions (Canon law for Christians and halakha for the Jews), without attempting to convert them by compulsion.
Maimonides, the early medieval Jewish scholar, for example, makes it clear that even in the "golden age" of Islamic rule in Spain, it could be a bit nightmarish for the non-Muslims; but if the rulers were reasonably kind and tolerant, and if the intolerant religious leaders were not in control, non-Muslims could live restrained but reasonably comfortable lives, as dhimmis(protected people), under Islamic suzerainty.
When Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, died in the year 632 CE, the Qur'an had not been compiled as a book. The messages said to have been revealed from God, or Allah, to the Muhammad during a period of 23 years, during his prophetic career, were either orally passed down or written on animal bones, leather and scraps of parchment, without systematic collection or any adequate background or context.
The Prophet Muhammad himself did not provide any authoritative narration or explanation for the Qur'anic verses while he was alive. He also did not provide a method for selecting his successor, nor did he authorize his companions to record the Hadith (his actions and sayings) while he was alive. Later, therefore, subsequent generations would have to sift through mountains of dubious material, in an age of primitive record keeping -- and during a period of discord, partisanship and violence, even among those who were close to the Prophet.

In the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE (48 years after Muhammad's death), depicted in Abbas Al-Musavi's painting, Husayn, the son of 'Ali and grandson of Muhammad, was killed along with his family and all his followers by the armies of the Umayyad Caliphate. It was the most crucial moment in the split between Shi'a and Sunni Islam. (Image source: Brooklyn Museum)

The Qur'an and the six canonical Hadith collections primarily formed the twin pillars of the sources from which the scholars of Islam developed the principles of Sharia and the commandments of the Islamic laws. These try to give prescriptions and proscriptions for allhuman conducts imaginable.
But is it not possible that God wanted humans to use their brains and rational faculties, and that He did not provide step-by-step instructions for all the questions in life simply to be obeyed by humans without reflection or questioning? Although in Islam, there exists an important concept called ijtihad -- independent reasoning in legal matters -- the literalist, textual fundamentalist scholars declared this principle to be inoperable whenever there are clear-cut, decisive textual statements in the sacred texts on the issue in question. There is also a debate as to whether the gates of ijtihad were closed after the 10th century CE. While most traditional Islamic scholars and jurists still consider ijtihad to be the exclusive domain and prerogative of the preeminent religious scholars (mujtahid), and not for the general public, other scholars do not.
In the early days of Islam, right after the passing away of the Prophet Muhammad, Muslims splintered into many sects and factions. There were endless debates on the issues of religious doctrine, theology, and religious law, due to divergent interpretations of the Qur'an and theHadiths. During that period, a group of theologians called the Mutazila, who based their theology on reason and rational thinking in conjunction with the sacred texts, waged an intellectual battle with the traditionalists, who gave absolute primacy to strict literal interpretations of the revealed texts: the Quran and the Hadith. Unfortunately for the future of the Islamic tradition, the literal traditionalists won the struggle, and went on to establish among the Sunni Muslims the four legal schools of Sharia, which became the dominant form of Islam from then onwards.
This mainstream, legalistic, text-bound, literalist Islam -- now the dominant strain and controlled by the traditional Muslim scholars -- is a mixture of both humanistic ethical values, combined with supremacist ethos, as it developed throughout the centuries. Due to its literalist tradition, it does not have the flexibility or the ability to overcome interpretations of the scriptures that are inimical to pluralistic and humanistic values.
Many equate this literalist, legalistic, text-bound Islam to be the "true" Islam. But just because it is the dominant form of Islam does not mean that it is the "true" Islam. A careful study of the history of Islam indicates that this view is utterly unwarranted. Religious traditions have changed and evolved over time, based on the understandings, interpretations, and practices of their adherents. Therefore, it is the duty of us Muslims, using reason and common sense, to reinterpret the scriptures to bring about an Islam that affirms and promotes universally accepted human rights and values.
Classical Islamic law is a synthesis and deduction of rulings from the Quran and Hadith by the medieval scholars from when Muslims were powerful. Beheadings and enslavement at that time were widespread among many societies, not unique to the practice of Islam. Muslims believe that in the Quran we have a document from God that provides ethical guidance and moral lessons from the Prophet and his followers in the language many at the time understood. They allude to the practices and conduct suitable for the time and place in which the Prophet lived and was trying to influence people.
There were many actions of the Prophet recorded in the "authentic" Hadith, such as holding slaves, carrying out beheadings and so on, which are not easy to accept according to the present day norms, to say the least. But for the textual literalists, there is no question that whatever the Prophet did, as recorded in the approved texts, must be accepted and emulated without any question or hesitation. And in order to strengthen their text-based legal methodology, the textual literalists elevated the status of the so called "authentic" Hadith to the status of the divine scripture, almost equivalent to the status of the Qur'an, believed by almost all Muslims to be the literal word of Allah relayed to the Prophet.
For the rest of us, however, first, we need to realize that the "approved" texts were recorded by early methods and at least after a century or two after the passing of the Prophet in an age of violent sectarian conflicts. Therefore, it might be wise to take with a big grain of salt, the accuracy of these so called "approved" texts. Second, if the actions of the Prophet were so important as exact examples, then, why didn't he or his God make sure that authoritative, unambiguous, contemporary recordings of the actions were written down for posterity to follow? Either the Prophet or his God, or both, did not have foresight, or more than likely, these actions were not meant to be exactly copied and emulated, especially in different times, different places, and under vastly different circumstances.
While it is true that there are eternal principles in the Qur'an and the Hadith, such as peace, justice, and mercy, which are universal values, and therefore, incumbent on everyone to believe and practice at all times and at all places, it is also true that it is a betrayal of the true spirit of Islam to assume that God wanted Muslims to follow the Prophet blindly, slavishly, without thinking and reflecting. Is it possible, therefore, that the close-minded, literalist and text-bound tradition is a betrayal of the true spirit of Islam?
The pitfalls of the literalist methodology can be illustrated by looking at any textual document. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for example, affirms freedom of speech. But we know that, to "shout fire in a crowded theater" (when there is no fire), for example, endangering public safety, does not fall under the protection of the First Amendment. Any text by its very nature is finite and limited, and therefore cannot be comprehensive. Therefore, to be a strict literalist is to live in constant conflict with common sense and with practical reason. According to the literalist classical scholars of Islam, "justice" is achieved only by being obedient to God and reason by itself is not to be trusted to decide what is just and unjust.
For these literalist, text-bound scholars, there are no objective standards of right or wrong by using reason alone. In the mind of the literalists, the killing of innocents, for example, is wrong not because we learn from experience or reason, but because that is what God says in the Qur'an and the Hadith. According to them, God could just as well have said, for example, in the scripture that the killing of innocents is right, and therefore that makes it right.
The god of these scholars is not therefore a merciful and rational God but a god of power whose motto is: "Might is right!" In order to preserve the absolute omnipotence of God, these scholars sacrifice rationality as an essential attribute of God.
As Prof. Robert Reilly writes in the article, "The Formidable Philosophical Obstacles to Islamic Constitutionalism":

"There is a realm within which man is legitimately semi-autonomous and sovereign. Through his reason, he is called upon [to] figure out how to rule it and himself ... God [in the Judeo-Christian tradition] speaks to man with equal force through his reason, as He does through revelation. Reason, therefore, is morally legitimate as a source of law. What is reasonable is morally good."

If we Muslims want to stand up and challenge the literalism of the text-bound scholars and the militants who are beheading, enslaving and persecuting people around the world alike, we need to develop an interpretative methodology that balances revelation with reason as in other rational, religious traditions.
The militants are idealistic and impatient, and part of an ideology that has essentially become frozen in time, while the other Muslims are more careful, patient and circumspect, and dwell in a tolerant society without resorting to violence.
That is why many of these literalists believe that peace, justice and mercy (all interpreted according to the classical Sharia) can be achieved only under the sovereignty or hegemony of Islamic rule. And that is also why the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference, since renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation), in 1990 came up with its own version of a human rights declaration, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam -- based on Sharia law -- to supersede the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved by the UN in 1948.
So the vital question is: Can't we Muslims also learn from all of human history and all of nature -- the arts and the sciences -- which are also created and originated from God, as in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as stated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence?
There are signs and hints in the natural world that provide guidance from the Creator on a continuing basis, even after all the textual revelations. Although God has stopped sending His messages (revelations) through human messengers, He is still providing messages, in the form of natural phenomena in the world He created, so that human beings can experiment and learn, and benefit -- using reason and reflection.
Slavery and beheadings may have been suitable at some time in human history. But just because it is in the scriptural texts, it does not mean that we need to follow them to the letter so literally, for eternity -- unless we happen to agree with the literalists, and reject using reason and thinking to learn from the natural sciences and the experiences of human history.
A religion that prescribes killing or criminalizing apostates; condones institutionalized slavery, stoning, beheading, flogging, and amputations; which restricts and criminalizes freedom of speech and freedom of religion; commands the stoning of adulterers; develops a theory of constant state of war with non-believers; discriminates and demeans women and people of other religions is not only "The Religion of the Bigots" but it is also the Religion of the Bullies.
Classical Islamic law, developed over the history of Islam, is definitely not peaceful or benign, and therefore not suitable for this age; neither are its violent and grotesque progeny such as Islamism and jihadism.
If we Muslims believe that "true" Islam, which is genuinely aligned with the will of the Creator, must be fundamentally peaceful, comprehensively merciful and objectively just, then it is our duty to cleanse the traditional, literalist, classical Islam and purify it to make an Islam that is worthy to be called a beautiful religion.

Ahmed Vanya , based in San Jose, California, is a fellow at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD).

The Hater In Chief.

Obama appears to hate everyone

Posted on November 20, 2014 by Wayne Allyn Root

Hi. I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. We all know Barack Obama is a hater. It’s crystal clear from his comments about “fundamentally changing America” and, of course, his policies that have caused chaos and crisis in our economy and foreign policy that Obama hates America.

We know from his actions and policies — including his statement, “You didn’t build that” — that he hates business owners.

We know from his statement about Middle America — that they “cling to their guns and Bibles” — that he has disdain for middle-class Americans.

But you might be surprised to learn that he hates his own core supporters. What other conclusion can you draw when you hear the facts? On Election Day, two weeks ago, Obama got 89 percent support from black voters and66 percent support from Jewish voters.

Yet the facts I’m about to report indicate that Obama is out to hurt African-Americans and Jews. This guy really is a world-class hater. He appears to hate everyone — at least everyone inside America. The question is why don’t African-Americans and Jews see the truth that’s staring them right in the face? Why are African-Americans and Jews voting against their own self-interest? Why are they voting for a guy committed to hurting them?

As an American (and a Jew), I couldn’t think of a more dangerous or damaging plan toward African-Americans or Jews than the one being carried out by Obama.

Let’s start with black Americans, and let me be blunt. As a successful businessman, Obama’s plan to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens will not greatly affect my life. However, it will it crush the lives of millions of poor and lower-income black Americans, especially those striving and working hard to escape poverty and achieve the American dream.

After six years of Obama’s presidency, African-American unemployment is more than double that of whites.

Obama’s policies haven’t provided jobs (obviously). But he has provided record levels of welfare, food stamps, disability and other handouts from government. Is this a man out to help you? With friends like that, who needs enemies? But I digress.

It’s about to get worse, far worse. Obama’s imminent amnesty plan will allow millions of illegal immigrants to compete for jobs at the lowest rung of the economic scale, a disproportionate number of whom are black Americans. With total disregard for their welfare, hopes or dreams, Obama will snub his nose at all struggling lower-middle income Americans by allowing millions of uneducated, hardworking, desperate-to-support-their-families illegal aliens to legally fight them for low-wage jobs.

These illegal immigrants aren’t going to take the jobs of Obama’s liberal Ivy League friends. They aren’t going to take the jobs of his millionaire bundlers. They aren’t going to take the jobs of his billionaire limo-riding, private-jet-flying, Democratic donors. They pose no threat to Hollywood celebrities. Millions of illegal immigrants suddenly legalized will be taking low-wage jobs from black (and other lower-income) Americans.

After Obama finishes his dirty, illegal amnesty deed, black Americans will either have a hard time ever finding another job or the wage pressure created by all these new job seekers means any black American with a low-wage job will never again see a raise. And forget about young people, especially those without college degrees, ever finding employment at any wage.

Am I wrong? Well, guess who agrees with me? Obama himself. Obama wrote in his book “The Audacity of Hope” that illegal immigration harms the wages of blue-collar workers (especially black Americans), depresses wages and strains the overburdened safety net. That’s what then-Senator Obama said in his own book in 2006.

So if, as a senator, Obama understood the damage illegal immigration does to black Americans, why would he, now as president, open the floodgates to illegal immigration? Why would Obama want to harm blue-collar workers and depress wages? Is Obama a racist out to keep black Americans hopeless, helpless and dependent on crappy government checks for the rest of all time? I can’t tell you what’s in his heart. But I can tell you: Obama is no friend of black Americans.

The next time you walk into a voting booth, remember Obama and the entire liberal political establishment stay in power by keeping their voters poor and dependent.

Now, let’s examine Obama’s treatment of Jewish Americans. Let me repeat: I am a member of that tribe. Israel’s right to exist is of paramount importance to most American Jews. The list is long of things Obama has said and done that indicate he is no friend of Israel. Let’s start with his nonstop supportive rhetoric toward Palestinians and Israel’s other radical Muslim enemies.

Then there’s his demanding Israel withdraw to borders that would weaken its defenses.

There’s his threatening to withhold military aid unless Israel stops defending itself against terrorists shooting missiles into its residential neighborhoods.

There’s his fomenting the Arab Spring so that Israel is now surrounded by radical extremist regimes dedicated to Israel’s destruction.

Then there’s his publicly embarrassing Israel’s leader Benjamin Netanyahu. (Obama aides went so far as to recently call Netanyahu “a coward.”)

And now, Obama is about to do the unthinkable: enter into a sham agreement that will allow Iran a nuclear weapon, which puts the lives of 7 million Israeli Jews at great risk.

Let that deed be on the hands of every Jewish voter who pulled the lever for Obama and his progressive cohorts.

Consider this.

Obama’s true feeling towards Jews and Israel can be summed up by his nomination of Loretta Lynch for U.S. attorney general. As a law student, Lynch was active in a radical group at Harvard Law School that each month brought in to speak Jew-hating, pro-terrorist radicals dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

Giving a platform to Jew haters like this tells you all you need to know about the mindset of Obama. A history like that should automatically disqualify anyone from ever getting near the U.S. Justice Department, let alone running it.

Who would choose a person with Lynch’s background to run Justice? With friends like Obama, Jews don’t need enemies.

By the way, if a white Republican conservative supported policies that hurt blacks or Jews, that resulted in more than double the rates of black to white unemployment, that allowed in millions of competitors for the jobs of black Americans or nominated someone to head the Justice Department with that kind of an anti-Semitic background, what would blacks and Jews say?

Folks, if someone hits and hurts you once, it might be a mistake. If he does it twice, perhaps it’s a coincidence. But if he attacks and hurts you repeatedly, it becomes clear it’s a purposeful pattern and you’re the target. It’s time to admit the other guy doesn’t like you.

So my message to black and Jewish Americans is simple: It’s time to consider that Obama isn’t on your side.

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. See you next week. God bless America.

The Extra-Constitutional President Makes His Move. Is Impeachment The Only Answer? Or Should Other Efforts Be Made To Corral Him?

Pat Buchanan: 'Rogue President' Says 'To Hell With Constitution'

Thursday, 20 Nov 2014 10:52 AM

By Sandy Fitzgerald

Share:

  Get Short Link |

  Email Article |

  Comment  |

   Contact Us  |

  Print  

|  A   A  

• inShare

The United States has a "rogue president" who has decided he is going to do what he wants to do and "to hell with the Constitution," columnist Pat Buchanan, former adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, told Newsmax TV Thursday.

"We have a rogue president who tonight is going to announce that he is going to do something he said not so long ago, one year ago, he does not have the legal or constitutional authority to do," Buchanan told "America's Forum" host J.D. Hayworth.

Story continues below video.

"This is being done for his political base in the Hispanic community. He looked at the election returns and said, with Republicans strengthened like this, there's nothing I can get done with Congress so I'm going to do what I can do and what I want to do and to hell with the Constitution." 
Buchanan also said he does not dispute the numbers from the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll,  which shows that most Americans don't agree with Obama taking executive action on immigration.

"The country realizes that the president here is acting in a usurpacious manner, that he is seizing power that he does not have," the conservative columnist told Hayworth. "Why is he doing it now? Why didn't he do it two years ago? If he had this authority why didn't he do it four years ago?"

Obama has always realized that he did not have the authority under the Constitution to enact an executive order granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants, said Buchanan.

And while there have been some who have warned about the potential for violence, once Obama announces his executive action, which was delayed earlier this year until after the midterm elections, Buchanan said he wouldn't predict violence, but he also would not be surprised by it.

"If you get wild celebrations in the community of illegal aliens around the country cheering and laughing at the rest of the country, you completely demoralize the Border Patrol and the sheriffs along that border who have been fighting this good fight for a long, long time and who have tried to do their job," Buchanan told Hayworth. "They're now being told everything you've done to protect the border and to maintain us as one nation, one people, is by the boards.

"We're in another country now and I can't express how much I feel this diminishes us as one nation, one people, and one country when you've said, in effect, folks who can walk into your house and sit down at the table are entitled to do so and entitled to remain," said Buchanan. "We cannot deport them and deportation is out of the question."

Further, Buchanan called the president's decision on executive action an "ollie-ollie-oxen-free invitation" for people who are not arriving legally, and an insult to the people who have been patient and taken the legal steps to become American citizens.

"Folks who have waited to become American citizens because they love the country and this is where they want to raise their children, they all look like fools now," said Buchanan. "They all look like people who obeyed America's laws and followed policies and our customs and traditions, and the guys who went up and walked across the border or pushed their kids across the border, they triumphed. They succeeded. They've won."

Story continues below video.

Buchanan called the executive action plan a "constitutional crisis," and said Congress will  have to "contain and control Obama" until his presidency is over in two years.

"We have a president of the United States who says, I'm not going to enforce the laws that require me to basically deport and remove [illegals] from society and send [them] back where they came from, people who have broken into our country and broken our laws," said Buchanan. "Yeah, you'd have something of a constitutional crisis."

However, he doesn't believe impeachment is the answer. Buchanan said there are not enough votes for that extreme action and "you don't want to put [Vice President] Joe Biden in there."

But he does believe that what Obama is doing is "an impeachable act."

"That doesn't mean that the Congress should immediately move to impeach him, but it's very difficult to see how there's any comity, any union, or any agreement in the next two years," Buchanan told Hayworth.

And even though Obama knows he doesn't really have the authority to enact his amnesty plan, and he won't be able to get the legislation through the incoming Republican-controlled Congress, "he's going ahead and like a dictator he's doing it himself," said Buchanan. "And he says, impeach me and be damned."

Buchanan said that if he were advising Obama like he advised former Presidents Reagan and Nixon, he'd  remind him that his legacy will be as a president who broke the law and violated the Constitution.

Buchanan said he'd tell Obama: "You believe it's going to be a good legacy, but I can tell you this, you yourself said you will be breaking the law and violating the Constitution. So that's going to stick, that's going to be a stigma around you, and I'll tell you this, Mr. President, when some problems arise from these folks whom you're giving an executive amnesty to in this country, people are going to turn and say that happened because the president of the United States gave them a blanket pardon."

Buchanan said he'd also tell Obama that while he may feel the executive action "is going to be treated as some kind of Emancipation Proclamation," it isn't.
"By what authority does he decide 4 or 5 million get amnesty and 4 or 5 million don't?" said Buchanan. "Is there something in the law that says that's the right figure? There's nothing in the law. He has no law to back up what he's doing."

Related Stories:

• Immigrant Groups Plan 'Watch Parties' for Obama Speech
• Major Spanish-Language Networks Alone in Airing Immigration Speech

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.